Software patents [Was:Re: Oracle intersted in buying Ubunutu]

[Alexander Jacob Tsykin]

On Friday 21 April 2006 00:03, Robert McWilliam wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 23:22:55 +1000, "Alexander Jacob Tsykin"
>
> <stsykin at gmail.com> said:
> > The companies are not interested in the industry as a whole, nor
> > should they be. Their job is to make a profit. Sometimes the best way
> > for them to do this legally is through patents. There are of course
> > limits. I do not believe in patented vague general ideas. I do believe
> > in the right to patent specific ones, sometimes. And certainly, code
> > should be patentable.
>
> I can understand the attraction of patents to the people who get them -
> being granted a monopoly has obvious attractions. But a company should
> be interested in the industry as a whole: Even if you're market share
> goes down so long as it is by a smaller % than the industry grows you're
> sales go up.
>
their goal is not just to make a profit but to maximise it, within the bounds 
of the law. They cannot be criticised for trying to do so.
> Why should code be patentable? To stop other people copying it?
> Copyright already does that. Patents on software that aren't merely an
> expensive duplication of copyright have to be on ideas.
>
Software should be patentable to provide options. If it is necessary int eh 
eyes of the company, why stop them? Particularly if they will copyright it 
anyway.
> What are the sometimes when an idea gets to be patented? And does this
> fringe case justify the stifling of innovation in the rest of the
> software world?
>
How can ti stifle innovation? If all the established ideas are patented you 
have to innovate. If anything, it encouraged innovation. What it does not 
encourage is free software in general. But ultimately, this is not the 
problem of the company. What you are saying is that somebody should make less 
profit so that you are free to modify software as you see fit and not pay for 
it. This is not really a moral stance. Saying "its better for me if you do 
things this way so do it, even if its worse for you" does not encourage 
freedom and is most definitely not democratic. Freedom is about empowering 
people, which is in turn about options. I try not to put my interests before 
those of everybody else, which is why I take the position I do. Provided 
people are not hurt or injured by it, people should be able to do as they 
please.

Sasha